Cdn-Firearms Digest Saturday, October 9 2010 Volume 14 : Number 126 In this issue: Re: Angus introduces Bill C-580 Where do they come from? "Turncoat" Charlie Angus' Bill Re: Where do they come from? Re: "Turncoat" Charlie Angus' Bill Canadian Outdoors Network aims for next long-gun registry debate Re: Long gun registry not a life saver No right to counsel during interrogation: top court Gun registry - anthology Rights No right to lawyer during questioning From soldiering to the streets [Excerpt] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 21:43:58 -0600 From: 10x@telus.net Subject: Re: Angus introduces Bill C-580 At 11:01 PM 10/8/2010 -0400, you wrote: >[Moving the yardsticks for the gun owners of Canada] > >40th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION >EDITED HANSARD =95 NUMBER 080 > >Friday, October 8, 2010 http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=4685293 > >(1205) > >Criminal Code > > >Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins=97James Bay, NDP) moved for leave to introduce >Bill C-580, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Firearms Act and the >Contraventions Act (long guns). This is Mr. Angus's bill. http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=3D4688255&fi= le=3D4 Please take note of the following portions of the bill: Aboriginal rights This is the fix for the Inuit challenge to the firearms act. 117.111 For greater certainty, no proceeding for an offence under any of sections 90, 91, 93, 97, 101, 104 and 105 may have the effect of abrogating or derogating from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. This will allow folks under treaty to possess firearms without a license. And make every other Canadaian much less "equal".... 4. Section 117.15 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2) (3) The Governor in Council may make regulations requiring a manufacturer or importer to provide information for the purpose of establishing that the thing in question is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes 5. Section 5 of the Firearms Act is amended by adding the following after subsection 5(2): Disclosure of records (2.1) The following records shall be disclosed to a chief firearms officer or, on a reference under section 74, a provincial court judge, in order to determine whether a person is eligible to hold a licence under subsection (1), namely, any record that indicates that the person (a) has been a member of and discharged from a law enforcement agency or the Canadian Forces or other military entity; or (b) has applied to become a member of a law enforcement agency or the Canadian Forces or other military entity and has been rejected. The following will throw a screw into milsurp imports 46. An authorization to import goods described in section 43 shall include the serial numbers of those goods and may be issued to a business only if the business that applies for such an authorization and this one is open to abuse by CBSA Bureaucrats (2) Paragraph 46(b) of the Act is replaced by the following: (b) identifies those goods in the prescribed manner, including by providing their serial numbers; (I have imported off road motorcycles. CBSA did everything possible to block the import even though I had met all of the requirements and had all of the PROPER documentation). No fee payable (1.1) Despite subsection (1), no fee shall be paid for a registration certificate for a firearm that is neither a prohibited firearm nor a restricted firearm. The sky is the limit on restricted and prohibited. An example is the "machine gun tax" in the U.S. pushing prices up to beyond reasonable. The following section places limits on executors lawfully carrying out the terms of a will (and that is wrong) (b) a person who comes into possession of a firearm by operation of law and who, within 90 days or such longer period as may be granted by a chief firearms officer under subsection (2.1), lawfully disposes of it or obtains a registration certificate for it; or (3) Section 112 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2): (2.1) A chief firearms officer may grant an extension of the 90-day period referred to in paragraph (2)(b) of no more than 90 days, if the chief firearms officer determines, on the basis of prescribed considerations, that granting the extension is warranted and that the person seeking the extension meets the following conditions: (a) the person applies to the chief firearms officer for an extension of time within the 90-day period referred to in paragraph (2)(b); and (b) the person is unable to dispose of the firearm or obtain a registration certificate for it within the 90-day period referred to in paragraph (2)(b) because of prescribed circumstances. This places a liability on executor. Executors that make mistakes ( do not apply for an extension) when carrying out the terms of the will can be sued by the heir for lost value. The bottom line - this amendment does nothing to "fix" the firearms act. but it serves to create legal liability for executors and place limits on executors. No fix here folks, move along! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 21:05:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Where do they come from? I wonder who's paying his way through all these degrees and activities? http://advocacynet.org/page/oalvarado Oscar Alvarado is honored to serve as a Peace Fellow in Toronto, Canada working with The Coalition for Gun Control. The Coalition for Gun Control is an alliance of more than 300 major policing, public safety and violence prevention organizations whose mission is to reduce and prevent gun violence, injury and crime. Oscar, a dual Canadian citizen, was born in Panama and has been raised all over the world ever since. After completing a BA&Sc in Biomedical Science and Economics from McGill University, Oscar spent a year in Kazakhstan as an English teacher, volunteer and intern with United Nations Volunteers. His desire for a multi-disciplinary understanding of socio-environmental issues immediately led him to pursue a MA in Environmental Security from the United Nations-mandated University for Peace in Costa Rica. In particular, his research interests include redefining the perception of the environment in contemporary security discourses and analyzing the linkages between environmental stress and conflict escalation. During this time, Oscar also volunteered as an environmental educator and contributed to several locally-based environmental initiatives. Before moving to Toronto, Oscar was an intern at the Security Governance / Counter-Terrorism Laboratory of the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) in Turin, Italy. This applied research institute is currently at the forefront of identifying emerging security challenges while facilitating comprehensive responses through knowledge management and technical cooperation. Here, Oscar contributed to several reports with topics ranging from the illicit trafficking of weapons to the risks associated with emerging nano and biotechnologies. Oscar’s academic, professional and volunteer work has taken him to all seven continents and he is currently fluent in English, Spanish and French with working knowledge of Russian and Italian. He is excited to contribute his knowledge and passion to The Coalition for Gun Control and its efforts to create more peaceful societies in Canada. Email Oscar. oalvarado@advocacynet.org Read Oscar's Blog http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/oalvarado Support Oscar's Fellowship with The Coalition for Gun Control: $ Enter Amount DONATE= GOOGLE Checout ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 21:35:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: "Turncoat" Charlie Angus' Bill This is an Opposition Member's Private Members Bill - so how much of a chance does it have on getting a slot on the Order Paper? Aren't the opposition parties given a set number of slots to put Bills into the rotation? Does anyone have a clear idea of how this works? Yours in TYRANNY! Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 04:43:47 -0600 From: 10x@telus.net Subject: Re: Where do they come from? At 09:05 PM 10/8/2010 -0700, you wrote: >I wonder who's paying his way through all these degrees and activities? > >http://advocacynet.org/page/oalvarado > >Oscar Alvarado is honored to serve as a Peace Fellow in Toronto, Canada >working with The Coalition for Gun Control. The Coalition for Gun Control >is an alliance of more than 300 major policing, public safety and violence >prevention organizations whose mission is to reduce and prevent gun >violence, injury and crime. Too bad the Coalition for Gun Control has yet to publish the names of the groups that support it and show copies of the letters of support. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 05:01:51 -0600 From: 10x@telus.net Subject: Re: "Turncoat" Charlie Angus' Bill At 09:35 PM 10/8/2010 -0700, you wrote: >This is an Opposition Member's Private Members Bill - so how much of a >chance does it have on getting a slot on the Order Paper? Aren't the >opposition parties given a set number of slots to put Bills into the >rotation? Does anyone have a clear idea of how this works? > >Yours in TYRANNY! >Bruce > Take 10 (TEN) minutes to read the bill. It does nothing to "fix" the gun laws. It just allows folks under treaty to operate without a firearms license or registerer guns and it makes it more dfficult for executors to carry out the terms of a will in regards to firearms. This is done through the addition of a 90 day term to "dispose" of firearms where the executor has to apply for extention after extension if there are delays in disposing of the firearms. The concept that the bill is a fix for anything rural / Urban is a lie pure and simple. Any individual supporting this bill and claiming it is a "fix" should be voted out of office. The text of Mr. Angus's bill is here. http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=4688255&file=4 Too bad the media can not figure out that they are being playe for fools by Mr. Angus et co. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 09:50:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Canadian Outdoors Network aims for next long-gun registry debate http://www.ifallsdailyjournal.com/news/outdoors/canadian-outdoors-network-aims-next-long-gun-registry-debate-110 Canadian Outdoors Network aims for next long-gun registry debate Submitted by Journal Staff on October 9, 2010 - 11:00am. CON Staff Report The Canadian Outdoors Network says Parliament's decision to keep the long gun registry will not end the national debate on firearm ownership. This is just one battle in a long war, says Robert Bailey, chair and national coordinator of the Canadian Outdoors Network, the country's largest coalition of outdoors organizations. This is about competing visions driven by differing ideologies. For us, the fight is about preserving our hunting, fishing, trapping and shooting lifestyle. Members of Parliament narrowly defeated a Private Members Bill Sept. 22. to scrap the registry, 153 votes to 151. The vote followed weeks of intense political maneuvering by the federal Conservative, Liberal and NDP parties. Bailey says the debate over the registry has polarized two very different parts of Canada; the urban majority, desperately looking for a solution to gun violence, and a rural minority where long guns play an important role in a way of life. "There are tremendous implications for the future of our rural culture," says Bailey, who is also Delta Waterfowl's vice president of policy. "The registry paints legitimate gun owners as people who are inherently a threat or a risk to society and that's simply not the case." Bailey says the Outdoors Network, representing 500,000 outdoors enthusiasts from 28 organizations, will continue its campaign to scrap a program plagued by cost overruns and controversy. Since 1995, the registry has cost taxpayers more than $1 billion with no demonstrated reduction in gun crime, according to Bailey. If public safety was the primary objective, the current national debate would be about crime control, not gun control, says Bailey. It's time we refocused these funds, and our efforts, on more appropriate programs that actually target crime, such as the smuggling of illegal firearms. Bailey says the divisive registry debate underlines a lack of tolerance for a lifestyle largely misunderstood in urban centers. Hunting, he says, is about more than taking the life of an animal, its about better connecting with nature, appreciating what it offers and helping make sure it's there for the future. He believes attacks on legitimate gun owners demonstrate a lack of tolerance that is un-Canadian. Any barriers we put to this lifestyle is not serving nature and wildlife conservation well. The gun registry is certainly a barrier which is unnecessary. It should be removed, he said. The Outdoors Network will continue to push for change as the country prepares for an anticipated federal election. The Network plans to target ridings where opposition members of Parliament first voted to abolish the registry, then changed their minds. It's important that these MP's know exactly what they've done, says Bailey. They were elected on promises to get rid of the registry, then flip-flopped for political reasons. They let their constituents down, and they have to be held accountable. The Outdoors Network was created in 2007. It has successfully lobbied to protect the Canadian Wildlife Service, maintain duck stamp revenues for waterfowl habitat, and to support changes to achieve greater protection for animals under federal animal cruelty legislation, while maintaining the legal basis for hunting, fishing, trapping and farming. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:36:39 -0400 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Re: Long gun registry not a life saver > http://www.northumberlandnews.com/opinion/article/163069 >> >> Long gun registry not a life saver >> >> Oct 04, 2010 - 02:51 PM >> >> In response to the letter 'How gun registry helps reduce death,' (Sept. >> 23). >> >> That is a foolish suggestion. If the two billion dollars had been spent >> on social or medical intervention programs instead, then there may not >> now be a need for a long gun registry to 'save our lives'. >> >> Denis Gale >> Campbellford >> >> newsroom@indynews.ca >> >> **Hear hear** . And what reflective mind would presume that any money saved by shutting down 'the [long gun] registry' would actually be spent on opening more hospital beds or getting seniors out of their shitty diapers? There's no glory here for Harps, and apparently the CPC 'core supporters' aren't *yet* so afflicted. And where does this $2 Bil spent on the long gun registry come from? Ya wonder how/why we're losing the 'battle'? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, October 9, 2010 9:26 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: No right to counsel during interrogation: top court GLOBE & MAIL - OCTOBER 9, 2010 No right to counsel during interrogation: top court BY KIRK MAKIN - JUSTICE REPORTER http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/no-right-to-counsel-during-interrogation-top-court/article1749557/ TORONTO STAR - OCTOBER 9, 2010 No right to lawyer during questioning, says top court By John Ward, The Canadian Press http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/872791--no-right-to-lawyer-during-questioning-says-top-court SUITE101.COM - OCTOBER 9, 2010 Suspects Have No Right To Counsel During Questioning By Arthur Weinreb, Co-author of The Criminal Lawyers' Guide http://www.suite101.com/content/suspects-have-no-right-to-counsel-during-questioning-a294961 MONTREAL GAZETTE - OCTOBER 9, 2010 Top court nixes suspects' right to lawyer No 'miranda'rules in Canada. Divided justices rule access to counsel not extended to police interview rooms By JANICE TIBBETTS, Postmedia News October 9, 2010 http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/court+nixes+suspects+right+lawyer/3648341/story.html STRAIGHT.COM - OCTOBER 8, 2010 Vancouver defence lawyer disappointed by Supreme Court ruling on rights under police interrogation By Stephen Thomson, October 8, 2010 http://www.straight.com/article-352345/vancouver/vancouver-defence-lawyer-disappointed-supreme-court-ruling-rights-under-police-interrogation VANCOUVER SUN - OCTOBER 9, 2010 Supreme Court restricts right to have a lawyer during police questioning By Ian Mulgrew http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Supreme+Court+restricts+right+have+lawyer+during+police+questioning/3649136/story.html The Supreme Court of Canada in a split 5-4 decision has rejected a "Miranda rule" for Canada and reined in the constitutional right to have a lawyer present during police interrogations. The dissenting justices believe the decision gives investigators too much leeway. In a ruling on three companion cases about the nature and limits of the right to counsel provided under s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the majority on the country's highest bench sided solidly with law enforcement. The issue was whether a suspect informed of his or her rights at the outset of an interrogation has the constitutional right to further consultations with counsel during the course of questioning. Not necessarily, said Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Louise Charron, supported by justices Marie Deschamps, Marshall Rothstein and Thomas Cromwell. "We conclude that s. 10(b) does not mandate the presence of defence counsel throughout a custodial interrogation," the majority said. "We further conclude that in most cases, an initial warning, coupled with a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel when the detainee invokes the right, satisfies s. 10(b)." Justice Ian Binnie disagreed, saying the court was going too far. The decision sets a standard well below the American Miranda rule requiring police to suspend questioning if a suspect invokes his or her right to have a lawyer present. What now appears to be licensed, Justice Binnie wrote, is that a presumed innocent individual may be detained and isolated by the police for at least five or six hours without reasonable recourse to a lawyer, during which time the officers can brush aside assertions of the right to silence or demands to be returned to his or her cell, in an endurance contest in which the interrogators, taking turns with one another, hold all the important legal cards. Justices Louis LeBel, Morris Fish and Rosalie Abella also raised concerns in their own separate dissents. In their joint opposition, delivered by LeBel and Fish, they emphasized this right was not restricted in time, granted to suspects only before they realize they are in acute jeopardy but withheld in the midst of an interrogation when they are vulnerable. A lawyer for the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, which made arguments to the court, said the association was disappointed. The association maintained individuals who were detained by the police have a continuing right to speak to counsel, and that the right is not extinguished by a one-time opportunity to speak with a lawyer at the beginning of detention. "It's a fairly thin view of the right to counsel," Michael Feder said of the ruling. The three cases before the court raised the same issue. The first involved Trent Terrence Sinclair, a Vernon man convicted of a Nov. 21, 2002, manslaughter in Vernon. He stabbed a man to death after a drinking and cocaine binge. After his arrest and a six-minute consultation with his lawyer, police interviewed Sinclair for several hours. He asked several times to speak with his counsel again and repeatedly said he didn't want to continue talking with the officers. The detectives, however, said he didn't have a right to talk with his lawyer again and ultimately wheedled Sinclair into making incriminating statements. His appeal was dismissed by the majority, but the dissenting justices would have ordered his self-incriminating statements excluded as evidence. In the second case, Donald Russell McCrimmon, a Chilliwack man, was convicted of a series of 2005 assaults on women that included drugging some of the victims. During his interrogation as well, after an initial warning, police ignored his requests for a lawyer until he incriminated himself. The majority also dismissed his appeal, with Justice Binnie agreeing with them in this case, though the other three dissenting justices thought McCrimmon deserved a new trial for the same reason as Sinclair. The third case involved an Alberta man, Stanley James Willier, who was acquitted of the Feb. 25, 2005, stabbing of a woman in High Prairie but ordered on appeal to be re-tried. None of the justices thought the same constitutional concerns were present and the court was unanimous in confirming a new trial. In dismissing his appeal, they said Willier was given ample opportunity to assert his rights but failed to exercise them with diligence. imulgrew@vancouversun.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:51:13 -0400 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Gun registry - anthology [Here's one for the history buffs. A compilation of approx. 180 articles going back to 2007] Gun registry > http://www.thestar.com/topic/gunregistry A full wrap up of the vote over the long-gun registry: opinion, analysis and reaction. The National Firearms Registry was created by an Act of Parliament in 1995. Although it has the support of police, it has faced opposition since its creation. The House of Commons voted 153-151 on Sept. 22, 2010 to halt a private member's bill that would have killed the registry. The registry's opponents vow to fight to scrap it. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 12:10:07 -0600 (CST) From: Walter Martindale Subject: Rights In light of the recent SCC decision, I wonder - is Canada signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? This question comes to mind as I bumped into the UDHR yesterday while perusing a National Geographic at the doc's office. Seems our Supreme Court don't really respect us too much. W ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 07:56:48 -0400 From: Subject: No right to lawyer during questioning The Supremes have decided that is you are abducted by the Police for an alleged offence you do not have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. There are other rights that just went by the wayside, and I can now hear the hand wringing done with Glee as the paid enforcers of the state ramp up their questioning techniques. A year or so ago these same Supremes upheld that the Police could continue questioning a suspect even if they lawyered up. It would appear now that any right to silence has been eliminated. Next I expect that the Supremes in their infinite wisdom will soon state "a suspect must assist the police in their investigation and self incrimination is not a good and sufficient reason not to assist. Failure to assist will automatically result in a guilty verdict and sentence. That is where this is heading. I can think of no greater reason not to assist any form of investigation because the deck is now firmly stacked against any suspect accused of allegedly performing a crime. G Gordon Liddy said it best. "I have nothing to say to you today, I have nothing to say to you tomorrow" this while he was being questioned. It would appear that like the Police function which was written to make the patrolman's right easier, The Supremes are also looking to make Policing easier and be damned the rights of the individual. It would appear that making the Police job easier, means fewer rights for the individual and will result in less thorough investigations. If anyone thinks there is such a thing as an idle conversation with the Police you are wrong. Clearly they have now been given free run and no longer are here to protect our rights. In fact the Police have been the point men on removing significant number of our rights. Why is that? Why do the Police feel a need to remove our rights and render us incapable of defending ourselves ? Perhaps some intrepid reader will begin this discussion. The Police state is now confirmed in Canada by the Supreme court because do not want to import the Miranda Warning. How many Canadians will now have their rights abused ? How will this affect gun owners. Can any one not see the parallels between what just happened and Nazi Germany? Coming to an interrogation near you soon, the rubber hose and truncheon sanctioned by the Supremes soon! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:14:08 -0400 From: Lee Jasper Subject: From soldiering to the streets [Excerpt] [Just think what the $1.1 Bil spent of G-8 and G-20 and $90 Mil spent on dressing up Tony Panayi's Muskoka riding could have done to resolve this problem]. From soldiering to the streets By KATHLEEN HARRIS, QMI Agency Last Updated: October 9, 2010 8:53am > http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/10/08/15633631.html VICTORIA, B.C. — He wore the uniform with pride for 15 years, and never had to fire at the enemy. But after leaving the military, he battled his own demons and tried to kill himself four times. Spiralling into depression, alcoholism and self-destruction after he was honourably discharged from the Canadian Forces, Robert Waller spent his post-service years in despair and on the streets. “For me it was the most difficult thing of my life, and I couldn’t cope,” he says of the transition from military to civilian life. “I never did find my niche after I got out of the service, to this day, and it’s been 20 years now.” Waller, 60, is among what some estimate to be a legion of thousands of homeless war veterans and ex-CF members. Pushed to the edge by post-traumatic stress disorder, addictions or family breakdown, they endure crushing poverty and ultimately, utter desperation. Some are debilitated by the psychological scars, or physical wounds, of war. Others couldn’t cope with the abrupt return society after a structured, disciplined life in the Canadian Forces. Some say scant support was there to help them make a successful transition. [The regular cheque writers to Harps should be clambering over this. Now he's got the goodwill from citizens for being a 'troop booster' he ignores them like they're dirty linen. I worked numerous cases like the ones in the article over the years and there were simply not enough supports available. In most cases, the former military types lacked marketable skills before they entered the CF so one was faced with people needing complete retraining plus re-integration services and resolution of various demons. Thank gosh they're not packing a side arm to defend themselves from spooks and Taliban lurking in the shadows of their minds]. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V14 #126 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator's email: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca FAQ list: http://www.canfirearms/Skeeter/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://www.canfirearms.ca CFDigest Archives: http://www.canfirearms.ca/archives To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next four lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".)